The disagreement
- Thread starter crystal scan
- Start date
Bobby Hogg
New Member
Re: Bobby Hogg
You were incorrect in saying that terrorism is directed only at civilians. Stop making vague comments about your credentials or qualifications on the subject. Either say what they are or shut the fuck up about them.
This is a ridiculous statement. I gather you are trying to say terrorism CANNOT be directed towards a military or a government?
So when a Palestinian terrorist shoots an Israeli soldier, that is not a terrorist attack? When the IRA bombs a British Army barracks, that is not a terrorist attack? When Eta assassinates a Spanish politician, that is not a terrorist attack?
None of these constitute terrorist activities?
What is your point? I already know all of this. Thanks for proving my point, though: guerilla warfare is simply a method of fighting. The goal has nothing to do with it, by the way. The goal is always to win when you fight a war. Whether it's bombing people from 50,000 feet or ambushing them in a jungle.
The difference between a guerilla or rebel army and a terrorist group being that terrorists operate when a country is not actually in a declared state of war.
Gato_Solo said:
You were incorrect in saying that terrorism is directed only at civilians. Stop making vague comments about your credentials or qualifications on the subject. Either say what they are or shut the fuck up about them.
Gato_Solo said:
This is a ridiculous statement. I gather you are trying to say terrorism CANNOT be directed towards a military or a government?
So when a Palestinian terrorist shoots an Israeli soldier, that is not a terrorist attack? When the IRA bombs a British Army barracks, that is not a terrorist attack? When Eta assassinates a Spanish politician, that is not a terrorist attack?
None of these constitute terrorist activities?
Gato_Solo said:
What is your point? I already know all of this. Thanks for proving my point, though: guerilla warfare is simply a method of fighting. The goal has nothing to do with it, by the way. The goal is always to win when you fight a war. Whether it's bombing people from 50,000 feet or ambushing them in a jungle.
The difference between a guerilla or rebel army and a terrorist group being that terrorists operate when a country is not actually in a declared state of war.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Re: Bobby Hogg
In a word? No.
Only if the direct result is civilian deaths. Otherwise, there's another term for it...illegal non-combatants. You may call them terrorists, if that's what you like, but that's not what they are.
Because that's the only part you got right. As for the goal...if there is no goal, then there is no fight. You can't motivate people to fight for nothing. There is always a reason for a person to take up arms/throw rocks/throw punches.
The difference between a guerilla, or rebel, army and a terrorist group has nothing to do with a declared state of war. Hell...Al Qaeda declared war on the West back in 1993. It wasn't until our home got attacked, that we got serious about it.
You still haven't proved your point, or backed it up with anything more than rhetoric. I'll give you facts when you give me some.
Bobby Hogg said:
In a word? No.
Bobby Hogg said:
Only if the direct result is civilian deaths. Otherwise, there's another term for it...illegal non-combatants. You may call them terrorists, if that's what you like, but that's not what they are.
Bobby Hogg said:
Because that's the only part you got right. As for the goal...if there is no goal, then there is no fight. You can't motivate people to fight for nothing. There is always a reason for a person to take up arms/throw rocks/throw punches.
The difference between a guerilla, or rebel, army and a terrorist group has nothing to do with a declared state of war. Hell...Al Qaeda declared war on the West back in 1993. It wasn't until our home got attacked, that we got serious about it.
You still haven't proved your point, or backed it up with anything more than rhetoric. I'll give you facts when you give me some.
Bobby Hogg
New Member
Re: Bobby Hogg
Illegal combatants was a term spawned by the US to try and get around the legalities of Guantanmo Bay and the imprisonment of enemy soldiers without giving them POW rights. It's a "straw man" term, it's utterly meaningless. Anyone without a sovereign mandate to fight a war is essentially an illegal combatant, whoever they are directing their violence towards.
Most terrorist groups direct their violence towards both civilian and military/security/establishment targets. It is fairly unusual, really, that a terrorist group solely directs its violence against civilians as the prime target. Al-Qaeda's recent record of hitting large civilian targets has caused people to assume this is what terrorism is and always has been.
Even then, 9/11 featured a major attack on the Pentagon. Was this not terrorism?
A group without a sovereign mandate cannot declare a state of war. That's why Al-Qaeda's war is unofficial and why they remain a terrorist organisation.
There is also a difference, for example, between the IRA declaring war on Britain and Northern Ireland officially being in a state of civil war and the IRA recognised as a rebel army ready to overthrow the incumbent government. Without their war being recognised, they are simply operating a terrorist campaign aimed at disrupting the establishment and society to coerce the government.
Gato_Solo said:
Illegal combatants was a term spawned by the US to try and get around the legalities of Guantanmo Bay and the imprisonment of enemy soldiers without giving them POW rights. It's a "straw man" term, it's utterly meaningless. Anyone without a sovereign mandate to fight a war is essentially an illegal combatant, whoever they are directing their violence towards.
Most terrorist groups direct their violence towards both civilian and military/security/establishment targets. It is fairly unusual, really, that a terrorist group solely directs its violence against civilians as the prime target. Al-Qaeda's recent record of hitting large civilian targets has caused people to assume this is what terrorism is and always has been.
Even then, 9/11 featured a major attack on the Pentagon. Was this not terrorism?
Gato_Solo said:
A group without a sovereign mandate cannot declare a state of war. That's why Al-Qaeda's war is unofficial and why they remain a terrorist organisation.
There is also a difference, for example, between the IRA declaring war on Britain and Northern Ireland officially being in a state of civil war and the IRA recognised as a rebel army ready to overthrow the incumbent government. Without their war being recognised, they are simply operating a terrorist campaign aimed at disrupting the establishment and society to coerce the government.
A.B.Normal
New Member
Re: Bobby Hogg
The bombing of the USS Cole and the Marine Barracks in Beirut are considered Terrorist acts are they not .
http://www.dod.mil/news/Oct2005/20051013_3038.html
Gato_Solo said:
The bombing of the USS Cole and the Marine Barracks in Beirut are considered Terrorist acts are they not .
http://www.dod.mil/news/Oct2005/20051013_3038.html
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Re: Bobby Hogg
I think you'd better have a look at the Geneva Convention before you place your foot in your mouth.
Sorry...but at the time of the attacks on New York and the Pentagon, Al Qaeda was working with the direct support of the Taleban government in Afghanistan. Once they had direct support of a government...even one as ruthless as the Taleban...they no longer fell under the umbrella of a terrorist organization. That being said...it's been quite usual...since 1972...for a terrorist organization to target civilians.
Se my above rebuttal.
Once again...read my rebuttal. Without Afghanistani support and approval, Al Qaeda would have been just another group of idiots bent on wanton destruction.
Bobby Hogg said:
I think you'd better have a look at the Geneva Convention before you place your foot in your mouth.
Bobby Hogg said:
Sorry...but at the time of the attacks on New York and the Pentagon, Al Qaeda was working with the direct support of the Taleban government in Afghanistan. Once they had direct support of a government...even one as ruthless as the Taleban...they no longer fell under the umbrella of a terrorist organization. That being said...it's been quite usual...since 1972...for a terrorist organization to target civilians.
Bobby Hogg said:
Se my above rebuttal.
Bobby Hogg said:
Once again...read my rebuttal. Without Afghanistani support and approval, Al Qaeda would have been just another group of idiots bent on wanton destruction.
A.B.Normal
New Member
Bobby Hogg
New Member
Re: Bobby Hogg
I've seen it and the relevant sections.
So what are Al-Qaeda then? If I understand you correctly, Al-Qaeda are not a terrorist organisation according to you?
That said, Al-Qaeda is only a name referring to a loose afiliation of like-minded individuals. A terrorist network, more than a centralised group.
And it's not really that normal for terrorists to attempt to massacre civilians, because generally it harms a cause rather than helps it.
Well, essentially that is what they are. The Taleban simply let Bin Laden operate in the country.
Gato_Solo said:
I've seen it and the relevant sections.
Gato_Solo said:
So what are Al-Qaeda then? If I understand you correctly, Al-Qaeda are not a terrorist organisation according to you?
That said, Al-Qaeda is only a name referring to a loose afiliation of like-minded individuals. A terrorist network, more than a centralised group.
And it's not really that normal for terrorists to attempt to massacre civilians, because generally it harms a cause rather than helps it.
Gato_Solo said:
Well, essentially that is what they are. The Taleban simply let Bin Laden operate in the country.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Re: Bobby Hogg
So...what, according to the Geneva convention, is an unlawful combatant?
Not if they have the backing or support of a government.
More of a militia of armed civilians now...
Where have you been hiding for the last 40 years? Terrorism works because it's more about inflicting damage on the general population than it is about military casualties. It may have started out with some 'noble' cause, but, in order to recruit more members, it must, as an organization, either completely cease all hostilities, or redouble it's efforts in order to radicalize it's base. There is no middle ground.
Bobby Hogg said:
So...what, according to the Geneva convention, is an unlawful combatant?
Bobby Hogg said:
Not if they have the backing or support of a government.
Bobby Hogg said:
More of a militia of armed civilians now...
Bobby Hogg said:
Where have you been hiding for the last 40 years? Terrorism works because it's more about inflicting damage on the general population than it is about military casualties. It may have started out with some 'noble' cause, but, in order to recruit more members, it must, as an organization, either completely cease all hostilities, or redouble it's efforts in order to radicalize it's base. There is no middle ground.
Bobby Hogg
New Member
Re: Bobby Hogg
The Geneva Convention doesn't specificy what an unlawful combatant is, it merely lays out who is entitled to POW status. As far as I know, the term illegal or unawful combatant was introduced by the US to describe those held at Guantanamo Bay, so that the Geneva Convention could be by-passed and the prisoners subjected to inhumane treatment without trial.
It's about causing disruption to the general population, and intimidating the government they wish to coerce. Wantonly murdering civilians is counter-productive to any cause.
Gato_Solo said:
The Geneva Convention doesn't specificy what an unlawful combatant is, it merely lays out who is entitled to POW status. As far as I know, the term illegal or unawful combatant was introduced by the US to describe those held at Guantanamo Bay, so that the Geneva Convention could be by-passed and the prisoners subjected to inhumane treatment without trial.
Gato_Solo said:
It's about causing disruption to the general population, and intimidating the government they wish to coerce. Wantonly murdering civilians is counter-productive to any cause.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
Terrorism: It’s hardly a new word but is a word with a new definition. A more refined one. While it may be true that terrorists used to dedicate most of their anger towards the military and other authorities, such as the police or political persons, terrorism has changed it’s face. While I believe that both Gato and Hogg are right about the state of terrorism, I also think that they are both wrong. IMHO...there is only one true goal of the terrorist. This goal is not the destruction of property, nor is it the death of people. There are far more efficient ways to kill people than to strap explosives to one’s chest, becoming a walking bomb in order to kill what amounts to often only a few people, if any. The same person, with the goal of killing many people at once, would be better to carry an automatic rifle into a mall and start shooting. The resulting death would be greater. The destruction of property, greater with a bomb dropped from a plane and easier-still with a few matches and a can of kerosene.
The true target of the terrorist is faith. Perhaps it touches upon the faith in a supreme being, but is more likely faith in the government, the police and the military who are sworn to protect us. Faith in our neighbors and in our society. What use is the police to us if they cannot protect us from a random bombing? What use is our great military if a small group of practically unarmed men can use our own aircraft as weapons against us? What is to protect us when we travel? Where is the security and our desire to live in peace, practically promised in our constitutions? What use are the politician’s promises? The strength of our laws? Our judges? Our morals? Our churches? Our Gods?
This is the true target of terrorism and it’s goal is to destroy us from within. It forces us to live with paranoia, looking over our shoulders and distrusting all whom we do not know. It forces us to hate others who are not like us. It forces us to give up our freedoms for a little bit of safety...and those who give up the freedoms for safety, deserve neither.
How will be win the war against terrorism? It won’t be with bullets, bombs or tanks. It won’t be with the army, or the police. It’ll be with the refusal by the population to be swayed into fear. It’ll be by refusing to see all Muslims as potential enemies. It’ll be by living, going to work, raising families, loving our children as we did before. In this way....the everyday people of New York, London, etc. etc... who have gone out and continued living without hesitation and fear or unfounded hatred have done and will continue to do more to stop terrorism than all the world’s armies.
*End of rant*
The true target of the terrorist is faith. Perhaps it touches upon the faith in a supreme being, but is more likely faith in the government, the police and the military who are sworn to protect us. Faith in our neighbors and in our society. What use is the police to us if they cannot protect us from a random bombing? What use is our great military if a small group of practically unarmed men can use our own aircraft as weapons against us? What is to protect us when we travel? Where is the security and our desire to live in peace, practically promised in our constitutions? What use are the politician’s promises? The strength of our laws? Our judges? Our morals? Our churches? Our Gods?
This is the true target of terrorism and it’s goal is to destroy us from within. It forces us to live with paranoia, looking over our shoulders and distrusting all whom we do not know. It forces us to hate others who are not like us. It forces us to give up our freedoms for a little bit of safety...and those who give up the freedoms for safety, deserve neither.
How will be win the war against terrorism? It won’t be with bullets, bombs or tanks. It won’t be with the army, or the police. It’ll be with the refusal by the population to be swayed into fear. It’ll be by refusing to see all Muslims as potential enemies. It’ll be by living, going to work, raising families, loving our children as we did before. In this way....the everyday people of New York, London, etc. etc... who have gone out and continued living without hesitation and fear or unfounded hatred have done and will continue to do more to stop terrorism than all the world’s armies.
*End of rant*
Re: Bobby Hogg
As long as the argument is valid, concise, to the point & not using feelings as a basis, it's respected. Too bad so few liberals can put those 4 points together in a single day much less during a debate.
Liberals get called out for what they espouse, fairly.
rrfield said:
As long as the argument is valid, concise, to the point & not using feelings as a basis, it's respected. Too bad so few liberals can put those 4 points together in a single day much less during a debate.
Liberals get called out for what they espouse, fairly.